Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of prohibited goods

Legal area

Court

19 Jun 2025

[TIMBALAN ] ANANTHAN JACOB A/L G SAMUEL

Citation

BA-41LB-25-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-41LB-25-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Magistrate erred in finding the charge defective and in concluding knowledge was not established; the prosecution proved the goods were prohibited and in possession of the accused and expert evidence including SM45/chemist reports was credible such that prima facie knowledge was established and the discharge and acquittal of the first accused could not stand.
13 Jun 2025

[Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (KDRM)] ONG BOON SIONG

Citation

JB-41LB-4-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-41LB-4-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the totality of evidence the High Court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had knowledge of or possession of the prohibited goods; the respondent rebutted the presumption in s.135(2) on the balance of probabilities by credible evidence that the goods were not in the vehicle while he was driving and that he left the vehicle unlocked on his employer's instructions; therefore the magistrate's acquittal was correct and should be upheld.
13 Jan 2025

NGO YU WHEE

Citation

CA-83-92-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CA-83-92-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved each element of possession and knowledge of prohibited uncustomed cigarettes beyond reasonable doubt; statutory presumptions under s119 and s135(2) were not rebutted by the defendant; recorded statements and corroborating forensic and valuation evidence established offence under s135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967; defendant convicted and sentenced accordingly.
28 May 2024

LAI CHEE KEONG

Citation

NC-83-85-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

NC-83-85-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the offence and to establish a prima facie case because ownership/control and knowledge of the seized goods were not shown and there were material defects and inconsistencies in the identification and chain of custody of the exhibits; accordingly the accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to enter defence.
6 May 2024

AUNG MOE ZAW

Citation

NA-83-720-06/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

NA-83-720-06/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution established each essential element: the seized beer were prohibited/dutiable goods (supported by chemical and classification reports), the accused had possession/control and the requisite knowledge inferred from circumstances and conduct, and no evidence was produced to rebut statutory presumptions that duties had been paid; defence account was an afterthought and did not raise reasonable doubt; accordingly the accused is guilty on both counts and liable to prescribed fines and forfeiture.
24 Sept 2023

[Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (KDRM)] LIONG MENG SOH

Citation

83-18-02/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

83-18-02/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution established that the accused had conscious possession and control of a large quantity of prohibited cigarettes found in his registered vehicle; classification and valuation by authorised customs officers established the goods were prohibited and duty unpaid; statutory presumptions under s.119 and s.135(2) were not rebutted on balance of probabilities by the defence; evidential chain and exhibits were sufficiently identified and admissible; defence account was an uncorroborated denial that did not raise reasonable doubt; therefore guilty under s.135(1)(d) read with s.135(1)(v)(aa).
17 Mar 2023

[Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (KDRM)] RADHAKRISHNAN A/L RANGASAMY RASU

Citation

BH-83-1204-06/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BH-83-1204-06/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution proved that the seized liquids were prohibited goods (intoxicating liquor), that the accused was the registered owner and in possession of the goods displayed openly for sale, and that statutory presumptions under s.119 and s.135(2) applied and were not rebutted. The chemist's report, though not using the exact statutory phrase, was a rational opinion based on adequate data and therefore sufficient. The handwritten tenancy agreement was unreliable and parol evidence could not vary its written terms. Therefore the accused was guilty under s.135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967.
31 Oct 2022

1. ) CHENG GUAN 2. ) CHENG AH HUAT

Citation

JA-83-1021-03/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-83-1021-03/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove the essential first element — the actual existence, precise quantity, type and alcoholic content of the goods as charged — and there were material discrepancies and breaks in the chain of custody and documentary evidence; those failures defeated the prima facie case and, therefore, the accused must be acquitted and discharged without calling their defence.
26 Jul 2021

PARK IN KEUN

Citation

WA-41S-41-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-41S-41-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution proved the seized beverages were intoxicating prohibited goods and the appellant, as the managing director who ordered and controlled stock at the premises, was in possession; statutory presumptions under s135(2) and the burden under s119 shifted the onus to the appellant who failed to rebut on the balance of probabilities, therefore the conviction was safe and is affirmed; s140(1) was not applied because the company was not charged.